As I've mentioned before, I've been involved in the war on gun owners since 1968 when I was 16 and first joined the NRA. In that time I've seen and heard it all.

But like any war there's many battles. You win some, you lose some, and the battles lines are ever changing as are the tactics of the enemy. And like any enemy they lie, obscure, and will stop at nothing to achieve their goals. Here's a few things my war weary mind has assessed as the current "tactics" meant to mislead and confuse. When you hear ANY of these things mentioned in any debate about firearms be advised that the smokescreen is out, and the enemy is trying to outflank you........

1. ANY mention of the word "HUNTING" or "SPORTING" use, as in....."You don't need such and such to shoot a deer"....The 2A, our inalieable birthright, has NOTHING to do with hunting. End of topic. There's nothing more to discuss on this angle.

2. ANYTIME the word "NEED" is used, ESPECIALLY when a politician is saying it. They are elected officials who work for us, and who TOOK AN OATH to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. They have no right, legal or moral authority to tell ANY American what they do or don't need when it comes to rights guaranteed by the Constitution and endowed to us BY THE CREATOR. They have no basis to tell us what we need, and we have NO obligation or reason to tell them or ANYONE what we "need" as far as our civil rights are concerned. When you hear "need", the discussion is over.

3. This one is the one I call "the big lie", or "if they tell you it's raining watch out for your leg because it's about to get wet...and not by rain". It starts with the politician/pundit/or sadly a misguided fellow gun owner stating.....

"I believe in the second amendment and the individual's right to keep and bear arms, BUT.........."

If they would stop before the "but" then there'd be no argument. But they don't. Now the lies start. The "but" will be followed then by a list of firearms or parts thereof that they DON'T believe we should have. Oh they will give all kinds of reasons, most times followed by the words "reasonable", "sane", "safety issue", or the meaningless "for the children".

(It REALLY galls me when Obama uses the "for the children" angle. This concern for children comes from a man who as an Illinois State Senator was the ONLY member of the Illnois Democrat delegation to vote AGAINST a bill that would have extended life saving procedures to a baby that SURVIVED a late term...yes, I said late term as already in the birth canal or maybe even partially out of the birth canal...abortion. That isn't politics, that's just pure evil. Yup... that shows how he really wants to protect children.)

This tactic of first stating that they believe in the 2A and then immediately go the opposite way from that point on is a new one in the war. I believe it may have to do with the SCOTUS decision in the Heller Case a few years ago which DID find that the 2A means just what it says. So now they need a smokescreen and this is it, although it isn't much of one and it's easy to thwart. As soon as they say the "but" part, immediately jump in and tell them. "No you don't! Because if you really did, then you wouldn't in the same damn sentence start telling me what YOU think I should or shouldn't be able to have!" It's like telling someone you won't stick a knife in their belly as you look them right in the eye as you silde the blade in as the words leave your lips. Topic over.